7.  The applicant was born in 1981 and was detained in the Corradino Correctional Facility, Paola, Malta, at the time his application was lodged. He now lives in Qawra, Malta.
8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
9.  Following, the applicant’s arrival in Malta on holiday, on 8 September 2009, he was arrested and questioned without the presence of a lawyer or an interpreter. On 10 September 2009, two days after his arrest, the applicant and some other Maltese and foreign suspects were charged with the possession of cannabis, not for their own exclusive use, and with conspiracy for the purposes of drug trafficking. They were brought before a magistrate and remanded in custody.
10.  The applicant alleged that the conditions of detention in prison amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. There was no access to hot water and there were no heaters. The prison had very dim lighting, which made it impossible to read. No drinking water was provided and had to be purchased by detainees themselves, and there were no facilities for washing clothes.
11.  The applicant, who suffers from health problems in relation to a dilated cerebral blood vessel which he claimed can be potentially fatal, complained that while in detention he had not received the relevant treatment he had previously been prescribed. According to a Lithuanian medical certificate of 2008 that he submitted, his condition caused headaches and required annual screening. In the event of increased dilation, surgical treatment might be needed. The certificate recommended that a computerised tomography (CT) scan be carried out between November and December 2009 and that the applicant avoid emotional strain and physical activity.
12.  According to the first medical report submitted by the Government, namely a prison doctor’s summary dated 9 August 2011, the applicant’s condition was as follows.
On admission, the applicant was not on any regular treatment save for analgesics (paracetamol and later a different type), which he took regularly. He had a history of recurring headaches and mental illness, for which he had received regular psychotherapy in the United Kingdom. Subsequent (blood and chest X-ray) tests did not reveal anything unusual. He was seen once by a forensic psychologist who expressed concern about the level of anxiety he was exhibiting on account of his incarceration, but the applicant refused to attend any further sessions. On 13 January 2010 the applicant asked to see a doctor because of headaches connected to his medical condition. He was referred to hospital with the relevant Lithuanian medical certificate from 2008. On 14 July 2010 the applicant visited the prison clinic, complaining that he had not yet been sent to hospital. The hospital was contacted the following day and an appointment was obtained for 8 March 2011. The applicant refused to attend.
13.  In his reply, the applicant contested the veracity of the medical summary. He claimed that he had only had a blood test on admission, and had never been taken to hospital for an X-ray. He had persistently requested to be seen by a prison psychologist after his first visit, but had repeatedly been told that he had to wait his turn as the prison was overcrowded. He had even attempted to go to see the psychologist in person, but the latter had given him the same reply. He claimed that he had been left suffering from headaches for days and that the prison authorities had refused to give him even simple paracetamol. At times he had been given just one tablet, which had not been enough. Any other stronger medication had to be provided by the inmates themselves. Only after a whole year of detention had he been allowed to purchase his own medication. He conceded, however, that he had refused to go to his hospital appointment on 8 March 2011. Having lost trust in the medical staff at the prison and the prison authorities over time, and expecting to be released on bail, he had thought that he would be able to seek appropriate medical assistance once released.
14.  The Government later submitted further documents, through which it transpired that following admission to the Corradino Correctional Facility (on 10 September 2009) the applicant was examined by a prison doctor. The relevant medical report was completed on 1 October 2009. Another examination was held in the months that followed, and the applicant was found to be fit enough to use the gym. Blood and virology tests were also carried out. The applicant was assessed by a psychologist and a report was compiled, stating, inter alia, the following: [He] “appeared to be paranoid and suspicious of everyone and everything. The inmate was offered psychological treatment should he need it in the future. The inmate resisted and stated that he does not need it at the moment. It would therefore be up to the inmate to seek help if ever he needed it”. From the applicant’s file, it did not appear that the applicant ever sought further treatment. On 13 January 2010 he was referred to the Neurology Department of St Luke’s Hospital (with the Lithuanian medical certificate attached) following complaints that he was suffering from headaches. On 1 February 2010 an appointment was fixed for him for 8 March 2011, but he refused to attend. In the meantime, on 7 February 2010 a chest X-ray was performed at Mater Dei Hospital, but no abnormalities were detected. The Government further alleged that on 1 November 2010 the applicant had had a dental appointment at the same hospital.
15.  The applicant’s first application to be granted bail, dated 3 November 2009, was refused by the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Inquiry (“Court of Magistrates”) on 17 December 2009. Having considered the applicant’s personal circumstances (from documents showing that financial support was available from his relatives), his academic background (he was a graduate in accountancy), his character reference as supported by evidence given by the Republic of Lithuania’s counsel (who was heard by the court in person), evidence that a third party was willing to rent an apartment to him if he were to be granted bail, pleadings relating to the fact that the applicant was a European Union citizen to whom the provisions of a European arrest warrant could apply, and the fact that the other co-accused had already been granted bail, the court nevertheless concluded that the applicant had no other ties with Malta capable of satisfying it that he would remain on the island.
16.  A second application for bail, dated 24 December 2009 (accompanied by documentation showing that financial support was available from the applicant’s relatives), was refused by the Criminal Court on 28 December 2009, on the grounds that there was a serious risk that the proceedings could be thwarted, either because the applicant would not appear for trial or would abscond or interfere with witnesses and that the case concerned a crime with international ramifications. The Criminal Court considered that he had no ties with Malta. Neither the intervention of the Lithuanian Consulate, which had offered to accommodate the applicant and employ him, nor the fact that he was an EU citizen could outweigh the other factors. However, the court acknowledged that the matter could be reviewed at a later date and specifically ordered that the proceedings be continued with speed and diligence in view of the applicant’s detention.
17.  A third application for bail, dated 19 January 2010, was refused by the Court of Magistrates on 26 January 2010 on the ground that the courts’ position had already been made clear. The prosecution was ordered to produce further evidence by the next hearing.
18.  A fourth application to be granted bail was made on 9 February 2010 when proceedings were still pending, making particular reference to the applicant’s medical condition, but it was refused by a decision of the Court of Magistrates on 12 February 2010. Having heard submissions and having read the previous decisions refusing bail, the court said it had nothing further to add to the position previously adopted by the courts.
19.  A fifth bail application was made on 14 April 2010. The applicant highlighted the fact that the witnesses in the case had been heard, that he had cooperated with the police, that he was an EU national with no criminal record, that he was suffering from a medical condition (as evidenced by the relevant medical documents already submitted to the court) in relation to which he should have undergone certain medical tests, and that he had financial support and a job offer and accommodation in Malta from the Lithuanian Consulate. He also argued that the passage of time should weigh heavily on the decision whether to grant him bail, particularly given the lack of special diligence on the part of the prosecution. On 19 April 2010, the Criminal Court refused the application, considering that the grounds for refusing bail made in the previous decisions were still valid.
20.  A sixth bail application was lodged on 1 July 2010, but was refused by the Court of Magistrates on 6 July 2010 on the basis of the previous decisions. The court requested the prosecution to determine the case expeditiously.
21.  The Attorney General objected to all the above-mentioned bail applications on account of the applicant’s lack of ties with Malta and the seriousness of the offences. The applicant claimed to have been the only suspect not to have been released on bail.
22.  The applicant lodged a further application for bail on 16 July 2010. On 22 July 2010 the Criminal Court, having considered that the Attorney General’s objection related to the risk of the applicant absconding and that the applicant had a job and accommodation waiting for him on his release, granted the applicant bail subject to conditions which included: (i) a declaration by the Lithuanian Consulate regarding the details of his future residence and job in Malta; (ii) an undertaking that he appear in person at every stage of the proceedings; (iii) a prohibition on him leaving the island, committing a crime while on bail, or speaking to any witnesses; (iv) a requirement that he report to the police station twice daily; (v) a curfew confining him to his residence between 6 p.m. and 7.45 a.m.; and (vi) financial guarantees by way of a deposit of 50,000 euros (EUR) and a personal guarantee of EUR 15,000 (a total of EUR 75,000 [sic]), which would be forfeited on breach of any of the above conditions.
23.  On 6 September 2010 the applicant, who was still in detention, requested to have the financial guarantees lowered to reflect his family’s income (as evidenced by supporting documents). The decision, if any, on that request has not been submitted to the Court.
24.  On 15 October 2010 the applicant, who remained in detention, reiterated his request to have the financial guarantees lowered. On 23 December 2010 the Court of Magistrates, following an objection by the Attorney General, denied the request on the basis that it should not alter the decision of the Criminal Court.
25.  The applicant lodged a third request while still in detention, in which he included evidence of his parents’ earnings and stated that he could reside with his girlfriend, as she was moving to Malta. On 22 February 2011 the Court of Magistrates reduced the deposit to EUR 40,000, but increased the personal guarantee to EUR 60,000.
26.  On 28 April 2011 a fourth request was lodged, in which the applicant insisted on his inability to pay the required sums and stated that his girlfriend, who had now moved to Malta, was willing to stand surety for him. On 4 May 2011 the Court of Magistrates amended the financial guarantees as follows: a deposit of EUR 30,000, or a third party surety of the same amount (upon disclosure of the financial resources of the person standing surety), and EUR 15,000 as a personal guarantee.
27.  The applicant was released on bail on 7 July 2011 having satisfied the said conditions. Over the months that followed, various decisions were delivered agreeing to change the police station to which he was required to report. On 5 June 2012 the applicant requested to have his bail conditions changed by withdrawing part of the deposit made in court. On 6 June 2012 the Court of Magistrates denied his request, considering that there were no legal grounds to revise the deposit imposed.
28.  The relevant time-lines of the criminal proceedings against the applicant (and other co-accused), together with what happened at the hearings (excluding matters related to bail which have been mentioned above) are as follows:
The applicant was arraigned on 10 September 2009 and pleaded not guilty to the charges.
On 14 September 2009 the prosecuting officer and eight other police officers gave evidence, and documents were exhibited.
On 22 September 2009 further documents were exhibited, a pharmacist, another police officer and a third person gave evidence. An expert in communications technology and a translator were appointed.
On 3 November 2009 a copy of the inquiry was exhibited and one person gave evidence and exhibited documents.
On 13 November 2009 another two police officers and a lawyer gave evidence and exhibited documents. A fingerprints expert was appointed.
Another hearing was held on 11 December 2009 (no record).
On 16 December 2009 the communications technology expert and two other individuals gave evidence.
On 21 January 2010 the fingerprints expert gave evidence.
On 2 February 2010, three witnesses, who had already been heard, gave further evidence, together with another two individuals.
On 11 February 2010 another witness gave evidence.
On 23 March 2010 the case was adjourned as the magistrate was indisposed.
On 25 March 2010 a doctor and the prosecuting officer gave evidence; the latter declared that only three witnesses remained to be heard.
On 4 May 2010 the case was adjourned as the magistrate was indisposed.
On 5 May 2010 a police inspector and another person gave evidence and were cross-examined. The co–accused’s lawyer objected to the proceedings being protracted.
On 11 May 2010 the case was adjourned due to technical problems.
On 22 June 2010 two witnesses who had already given evidence were further heard and cross-examined. The applicant’s lawyer reserved the right to further cross-examination, and requested that a witness be re-heard.
On 2 July 2010 the communications technology expert was cross‑examined and the applicant’s lawyer requested that another witness be re-heard.
On 4 August 2010 the case was adjourned.
On 6 September 2010 one of the witnesses called by the applicant was re-heard and cross-examined. The prosecution was to summon four further witnesses.
On 15 September 2010 a lawyer from the prosecutor’s office was heard.
On 27 September 2010 the case was adjourned following a request for letters rogatory by the co-accused.
On 30 September following a request for a change in the letters rogatory the case was adjourned.
On 12 October 2010 the court suspended the inquiry and the case was adjourned.
On 29 October 2010 the witness requested by the defence gave evidence, and another person whose evidence had already been tendered in writing was cross-examined. A third person refused to tender evidence. A translator was appointed.
On 10 November 2010, following a request to destroy the substances, the case was adjourned.
On 17 November 2010 another two police officers gave evidence. The prosecutor declared that he had no further evidence to produce.
On 26 November 2010 the case was adjourned as the prosecutor was indisposed.
From 3 December 2010 until 6 July 2011 the case was adjourned more than fifteen times for either unknown reasons, or because the magistrate was indisposed or because the letters rogatory were still pending.
In the meantime, on 22 February 2011 two other persons gave evidence. On 3 March 2011 defence counsel requested the summoning of witnesses. On 16 March 2011 the prosecuting officer gave evidence again. On 7 April 2011 another individual gave evidence. On 13 May 2011 a doctor who had already given evidence was re-heard. On 3 June 2011 another person gave evidence.
The applicant was effectively released from detention on 7 July 2011.
On 8 April 2013, date of the last communication with the Government, the committal proceedings were still on-going and no bill of indictment had yet been filed.
29.  The applicant acknowledged that he did not institute constitutional redress proceedings, but argued that he did not, in any event, have sufficient funds for doing so.